I'm a little disappointed in that too. I suppose they don't want to 'poke the bear' but when does one finally draw a line in the sand?Originally Posted by Markwebbos
I'm a little disappointed in that too. I suppose they don't want to 'poke the bear' but when does one finally draw a line in the sand?
Many of the AFL decisions wouldn't survive legal challenges but the vindictiveness that would provoke would be enormous. Sticks in the throat.
You are right, but there must be a point when you have to make a stand on principal, otherwise you keep getting stepped upon. I'd rather the club would "come out swinging" and earn some respect.
I wonder if it's actually for benefit of Dane's mental health. A week in the media spotlight would be taxing.
They got clarification yesterday. Hocking said the non-free kick was the correct decision as the rule states that the shaking of the post needs to be an intentional act, and they ruled that Rampe did not intend to shake the post, only climb it (which was a reportable offence).
Gerard Whateley went off his nut about it last night - I didn’t understand why.
When everyone kept arguing that it was a free kick, and then cited the law against shaking the post, it didn’t make sense to me.
Yeah, pathetic how Whateley did an about face & blew up like Robbo last night. I bet he wouldn've done so if it was Harry Taylor & Geelong in same scenario. His defence of Gary Ablett's forearm strikes to players heads in successive weeks is biased & laughable. He looked uncomfortable when Dunstall & Brereton were forthright that he should've been suspended.
This is an astonishing story about Arthur Hando...What a great story! Thanks for posting.
By "brought to our attention" I think the AFL mean "we saw it on Twitter"
Robert Allen on Twitter: "Fun Fact: the first VFL player reported for deliberately shaking a goal post was - ironically - a Swans player, Arthur Hando, in 1924"
a Swans player.
Whateley is a total knob. (there, got that ad hominen attack out of the way)
What those who scream "free kick!", "AFL stuff up!", "We Wuz Robbed!", etc. fail to understand is that outcome does not equate to intent.
The rule clearly says "intentionally shakes a goal or behind post", and this is the point in the rule where the umpires apply their interpretation. If the word intentionally isn't there then every incident of a player causing a post to shake must be paid a free kick. In the Rampe case the umpires have said that yes he climbed the post but it wasn't his intention to shake it. (if you disagree with this you are only disagreeing with an umpires decision, happens every day)
So Whateley going off his nut last night with "The post shook, what else was his intention" has dismissed the umpires interpretation and has foolishly equated outcome with intent ie the post shook therefore he must have meant to shake it.
Sure the umpire could have ruled he intended to shake the post and that decision, whilst we as Swans fans would have screamed foul, would have also been correct. Good old interpretation.
Whateley and Robinson should get a life. I'm into the footy but seriously.
I used to watch 360 all the time because I enjoyed Whateley baiting Robbo and trying to put him down gently. I mean Robbo leads with his chin all the time.
But now I am off the show as Whateley went way over the top with his spray at Rampe,Swans, AFL, Umpires and whoever he could think of.
Gee if the umpire had picked up the blatant throw by Heppell that gave them the goal and be 5 points down, none of this crap would have happened - or maybe a smaller version of it.
Me neither. Whateley's credibility has fallen away working in commercial media.
Sold his soul to the devil
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks